Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: New DNA Study on Neolithic Populations in China

  1. #1
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class1000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Bosnian Boss's Avatar
    Join Date
    09-07-15
    Location
    California
    Posts
    29
    Points
    4,852
    Level
    20
    Points: 4,852, Level: 20
    Level completed: 51%, Points required for next Level: 198
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I-M423
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1C1

    Ethnic group
    Bosniak, Serb, Croat, Czech, German
    Country: USA - California



    4 members found this post helpful.

    Post New DNA Study on Neolithic Populations in China

    A new study arrived today on a somewhat less-discussed topic, that being Neolithic China. https://phys.org/news/2020-05-ancien...ant-piece.html

    Newly released genomes from Neolithic East Asia have unveiled a missing piece of human prehistory, according to a study conducted by Prof. Fu Qiaomei's team from the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology (IVPP) of the Chinese Academy of Sciences.
    The study, published in
    Science on May 14, reveals that population movement played a profound role in the early genetic history of East Asians.The researchers used advanced ancient DNA capture techniques to retrieve ancient DNA from 25 individuals dating back 9,500-4,200 years and one individual dating back 300 years from northern and southern East Asia.
    The newly sequenced DNA casts a spotlight on an important period in East Asia's early history: the transition from hunter-gathering to agricultural economies.
    One hypothesis for population movement in East Asia is that during the Neolithic, a "second layer" of agriculturalists replaced a "first layer" of hunter-gatherers in East and Southeast Asia.
    While the genetics of ancient humans in Southeast Asia, Siberia, and the Japanese archipelago have been well-studied, little has been known until now about the genetics of ancient humans in northern and southern China.
    Prof. Fu and her team found that these Neolithic humans share the closest genetic relationship to present-day East Asians who belong to this "second layer." This suggests that by 9,500 years ago, the primary ancestries composing the genetic makeup of East Asians today could already be found in mainland East Asia.
    While more divergent ancestries can be found in Southeast Asia and the Japanese archipelago, in the Chinese mainland, Neolithic populations already displayed genetic features belonging to present-day East Asians.
    Notably, this includes the Early Neolithic southern East Asians dating to ~8,000 years from this study that should have been "first layer" early Asians, according to the earlier hypothesis. In fact, Prof. Fu and her team showed that they shared a closer relationship to present-day "second layer" East Asians. Thus, the results of the current study fail to support a "two layer" dispersal model in Neolithic East Asia in this area.
    The scientists also found that Early Neolithic East Asians were more genetically differentiated from each other than present-day East Asians are. In early Neolithic East Asia since 9,500 BP, a northern ancestry existed along the Yellow River and up into the eastern steppes of Siberia, distinct from a southern ancestry that existed along the coast of the southern Chinese mainland and islands in the Taiwan Strait since 8,400 BP.

    Population movement may have already started impacting East Asians by the Late Neolithic. For example, the Late Neolithic southern East Asians may have shared a connection to coastal northern East Asians and the former's ancestry may have extended north as well.
    Today, most East Asian populations are not clearly separated into two distinct groups. Present-day mainland East Asians from both the north and south share a closer genetic relationship to northern Neolithic East Asians along the Yellow River than to southern Neolithic East Asians on the southern coast of China.
    Further analyses show that they are almost all a mixture of northern and southern ancestry from Neolithic East Asia, with northern ancestry playing a larger role. Population movement, particularly from the north along the Yellow River southward was a prominent part of East Asian prehistory after the Neolithic.

    Interestingly, present-day Han Chinese in all provinces, north and south, show a similar amount of northern and southern influences.
    Southern ancestry, while less represented in mainland East Asia today, had extensive influence on other regions. Present-day Austronesian speakers, who share a close genetic relationship to present-day mainland East Asians but live across a wide swath of islands in Southeast Asia and the Southwest Pacific, show a remarkably close genetic relationship to Neolithic populations from the southern coast of China.
    Archaeological materials dating back to the Middle Neolithic have long hinted at the connection between Austronesian islanders and populations in mainland East Asia. Now, the genetic relationships uncovered by Prof. Fu and her team show unambiguous evidence that Austronesian speakers today originated from a proto-Austronesian population that derived from southern China at least 8,400 year ago.
    The history revealed by these 26 ancient humans highlights the profound impact that population movement and mixture had on human history, but they also reveal continuity that extends back 9,500 years. Unlike in Europe, influences from Central Asia had no role in the formation of East Asian ancestry, with mixing largely occurring regionally between northern and southern populations in East Asia.
    The whole slate of ancestries present across East Asia during the Neolithic is still unknown, as genome-wide data have not been retrieved from many inland regions of mainland East Asia.
    But coastal connections between ancient populations in Siberia, Japan, China, and Southeast Asia suggest that as more ancient DNA is retrieved and studied, a complex history of population contact and admixture in East Asian human prehistory will be revealed.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    kingjohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    05-09-16
    Posts
    517
    Points
    8,751
    Level
    28
    Points: 8,751, Level: 28
    Level completed: 1%, Points required for next Level: 599
    Overall activity: 35.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-CTS1096

    Country: Uruguay



    don't know where they hide
    the mtdna and y dna of those 25 individuals
    https://science.sciencemag.org/conte...09_Yang_SM.pdf

  3. #3
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    Dagne's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-04-11
    Location
    Vilnius
    Posts
    584
    Points
    14,463
    Level
    36
    Points: 14,463, Level: 36
    Level completed: 52%, Points required for next Level: 387
    Overall activity: 7.0%


    Ethnic group
    Lithuanian
    Country: Lithuania



    "The scientists also found that Early Neolithic East Asians were more genetically differentiated from each other than present-day East Asians are. In early Neolithic East Asia since 9,500 BP, a northern ancestry existed along the Yellow River and up into the eastern steppes of Siberia, distinct from a southern ancestry that existed along the coast of the southern Chinese mainland and islands in the Taiwan Strait since 8,400 BP."

    It would be interesting to have some visuals about these two ancestries and how they compare to present/ancient populations

    the Northern Ancestry which existed along the Yellow River and into Eastern Siberian Steppe - with some Eastern Hunter Gatherer component?
    the Southern Ancestry which existed
    along the coast of the southern Chinese mainland and islands in the Taiwan Strait - more like Austronesian speakers?



  4. #4
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    21-05-18
    Posts
    23
    Points
    1,786
    Level
    11
    Points: 1,786, Level: 11
    Level completed: 79%, Points required for next Level: 64
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-CTS3087
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H16

    Country: USA - California



    Are you saying the paper implies there is an ANE/ANS and EHG related influence in these Neolithic Yellow River/Eastern Siberian Steppe populations, populations with this Northern Ancestry?

  5. #5
    Satyavrata Achievements:
    Three FriendsRecommendation First ClassVeteran50000 Experience PointsTagger First Class
    Maciamo's Avatar
    Join Date
    17-07-02
    Location
    Lothier
    Posts
    9,047
    Points
    758,639
    Level
    100
    Points: 758,639, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.0%


    Ethnic group
    Italo-celto-germanic
    Country: Belgium - Brussels



    1 members found this post helpful.
    This study confirms what I wrote in my Genetic History of the Japanese people 4 years ago - namely that there were two distinct groups of Neolithic Chinese farmers, a northern one belonging to haplogroup O3 and linked to the diffusion of Sinic languages, and a southern one belonging primarily to haplogroup O1a and O2a associated with the spread of Austronesian languages. My research shows that Japan was first colonised by the southern group some time between 4500 BCE and 2000 BCE, which explains the presence of an Austronesian substrate to Japonic languages (words like sakana, ebi, kimi, anata...). The much later arrival of the Yayoi people from northern China and Korea c. 500 BCE brought haplogroups C2a (Mongolic) O2b (Korean), O3 (North Han Chinese) and Q1a (Siberian) to Japan.

    My book selection---Follow me on Facebook and Twitter --- My profile on Academia.edu and on ResearchGate ----Check Wa-pedia's Japan Guide
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "What is the use of living, if it be not to strive for noble causes and to make this muddled world a better place for those who will live in it after we are gone?", Winston Churchill.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience PointsThree Friends
    Regio X's Avatar
    Join Date
    12-03-14
    Posts
    875
    Points
    18,142
    Level
    41
    Points: 18,142, Level: 41
    Level completed: 11%, Points required for next Level: 808
    Overall activity: 35.0%


    Country: Italy



    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Johnson View Post
    Are you saying the paper implies there is an ANE/ANS and EHG related influence in these Neolithic Yellow River/Eastern Siberian Steppe populations, populations with this Northern Ancestry?
    From the paper:

    "Unlike in Europe, influences from Central Asia had no role in the formation of East Asian ancestry, with mixing largely occurring regionally between northern and southern populations in East Asia."

  7. #7
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    29-04-18
    Posts
    68
    Points
    3,016
    Level
    15
    Points: 3,016, Level: 15
    Level completed: 89%, Points required for next Level: 34
    Overall activity: 6.0%


    Country: Norway



    How firm is this? I mean "We were always here, and had no mixing from outside" sounds very much like the politically preferred result. I do know that matters such as the Indo-European expansion is heavily politicized in India. How is the issue of ethnic origins in China? I mean it is quite possible that this is a perfectly straight and above board result, but when the result of a paper with potential political implications in an authoritarian regime ends up with exactly the result the authorities would prefer, I think an extra level of scrutiny is required.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    12-12-16
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    346
    Points
    4,529
    Level
    19
    Points: 4,529, Level: 19
    Level completed: 70%, Points required for next Level: 121
    Overall activity: 4.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b U-152
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c8

    Ethnic group
    Italian, Jewish, British
    Country: United States



    Wow, how boring. So they have been the same for 9k years, and before than they were only a little different from each other? How different were the Southern Group from Modern Native Australians? And the Norther Group was always completely distinct from ANE with little admixture?

  9. #9
    Satyavrata Achievements:
    Three FriendsRecommendation First ClassVeteran50000 Experience PointsTagger First Class
    Maciamo's Avatar
    Join Date
    17-07-02
    Location
    Lothier
    Posts
    9,047
    Points
    758,639
    Level
    100
    Points: 758,639, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.0%


    Ethnic group
    Italo-celto-germanic
    Country: Belgium - Brussels



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by New Englander View Post
    How different were the Southern Group from Modern Native Australians? And the Norther Group was always completely distinct from ANE with little admixture?
    The southern group is not related to aboriginal Australians. It provided the Chinese ancestry of the Filipinos, Malays, Indonesians and Polynesians.

    ANE is more closely related to the original tribes of Y-haplogroups Q and R, although the Neolithic Chinese haplogroups N and O (O being found both in the northern and southern groups) are the next closest kin in the phylogeny.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    kingjohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    05-09-16
    Posts
    517
    Points
    8,751
    Level
    28
    Points: 8,751, Level: 28
    Level completed: 1%, Points required for next Level: 599
    Overall activity: 35.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-CTS1096

    Country: Uruguay



    someone in anthrogenica
    analyse the files
    Y chr Haplogroup Assignments:

    XJS1309_M4 Xiaojingshan N1b1:F4201 (~N-F2905)
    BS Boshan N1b1:F4201 (~N-F2905)
    L5696_d Tanshishan O1b1a1a1a:F1252 (~O-F1252)
    L5701_d Xitoucun O2a1:F573 (~O-L465) LowCoverage
    L7415 Tanshishan O1a2:M50 (~O-M110)
    LD1 Liangdao1 O1a (~O-M119)
    I3612 Taiwan_Hanben O2a2b2a2b (~O-F706)
    I3733 Taiwan_Hanben O1a1a1a1 (~O-F78)
    I3736 Taiwan_Hanben O1a1a1a1 (~O-F78)
    I3614 Taiwan_Hanben O2a2b2b1 (~O-Y125645)
    I3618 Taiwan_Hanben O2a2b2a2b (~O-F706)
    I3731 Taiwan_Hanben O1a1a1a1 (~O-F78)
    I3734 Taiwan_Hanben O2a2a1a2a2 (~O-Y26395)
    I14934 Taiwan_Hanben O1a1a1a1 (~O-F78)
    I8080 Taiwan_Hanben O1a1a1a (~O-F140)
    I8081 Taiwan_Hanben O1a1a1a (~O-F140)
    I13695 Taiwan_Hanben O1a1a1a (~O-F140)


    I used published genotype files to make these assignments.
    List of positive and negative calls for each sample.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •